Peter Doshi’s letters to the BMJ on the Pfizer and Moderna Covid Vaccines

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

January 4, 2021

Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 vaccine trials, all that was in the public domain were the study protocols and a few press releases. Today, two journal publications and around 400 pages of summary data are available in the form of multiple reports presented by and to the FDA prior to the agency’s emergency authorization of each company’s mRNA vaccine. While some of the additional details are reassuring, some are not. Here I outline new concerns about the trustworthiness and meaningfulness of the reported efficacy results.

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriad causes—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

The 371 individuals excluded from Pfizer vaccine efficacy analysis

Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.”  What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)

What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group?  The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.

Fever and pain medications, unblinding, and primary event adjudication committees

Last month I expressed concern about the potential confounding role of pain and fever medications to treat symptoms. I posited that such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, possibly in greater numbers in people who received the vaccine in an effort to prevent or treat adverse events. However, it seems their potential to confound results was fairly limited: although the results indicate that these medicines were taken around 34 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer’s vaccine—Moderna did not report as clearly), their use was presumably concentrated in the first week after vaccine use, taken to relieve post-injection local and systemic adverse events. But the cumulative incidence curves suggest a fairly constant rate of confirmed covid-19 cases over time, with symptom onset dates extending well beyond a week after dosing.

That said, the higher rate of medication use in the vaccine arm provides further reason to worry about unofficial unblinding. Given the vaccines’ reactogenicity, it’s hard to imagine participants and investigators could not make educated guesses about which group they were in.  The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective making unblinding an important concern. Yet neither FDA nor the companies seem to have formally probed the reliability of the blinding procedure, and its effects on the reported outcomes.

Nor do we know enough about the processes of the primary event adjudication committees that counted covid-19 cases. Were they blinded to antibody data and information on patients’ symptoms in the first week after vaccination?  What criteria did they employ, and why, with a primary event consisting of a patient-reported outcome (covid-19 symptoms) and PCR test result, was such a committee even necessary? It’s also important to understand who was on these committees. While Moderna has named its four-member adjudication committee—all university-affiliated physicians—Pfizer’s protocol says three Pfizer employees did the work. Yes, Pfizer staff members.

Vaccine efficacy in people who already had covid?

Individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous diagnosis of Covid-19 were excluded from Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials. But still 1125 (3.0%) and 675 (2.2%) of participants in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, respectively, were deemed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline.

Vaccine safety and efficacy in these recipients has not received much attention, but as increasingly large portions of many countries’ populations may be “post-Covid,” these data seem important—and all the more so as the US CDC recommends offering vaccine “regardless of history of prior symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This follows on from the agency’s conclusions, regarding Pfizer’s vaccine, that it had ≥92% efficacy and “no specific safety concerns” in people with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group, using the differences between Tables 9 and 10) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group; Table 12).

But with only around four to 31 reinfections documented globally, how, in trials of tens of thousands, with median follow-up of two months, could there be nine confirmed covid-19 cases among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline? Is this representative of meaningful vaccine efficacy, as CDC seems to have endorsed? Or could it be something else, like prevention of covid-19 symptoms, possibly by the vaccine or by the use of medicines which suppress symptoms, and nothing to do with reinfection?

We need the raw data

Addressing the many open questions about these trials requires access to the raw trial data. But no company seems to have shared data with any third party at this point.

Pfizer says it is making data available “upon request, and subject to review.” This stops far short of making data publicly available, but at least leaves the door open. How open is unclear, since the study protocol says Pfizer will only start making data available 24 months after study completion.

Moderna’s data sharing statement states data “may be available upon request once the trial is complete.” This translates to sometime in mid-to-late 2022, as follow-up is planned for 2 years.

Things may be no different for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine which has pledged patient-level data “when the trial is complete.” And the ClinicalTrials.gov entry for the Russian Sputnik V vaccine says there are no plans to share individual participant data.

The European Medicines Agency and Health Canada, however, may share data for any authorized vaccines much earlier.  EMA has already pledged to publish the data submitted by Pfizer on its website “in due course,” as has Health Canada.

Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ

Competing interests: I have been pursuing the public release of vaccine trial protocols, and have co-signed open letters calling for independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.

Spanish translation of this article

Footnote

Calculations in this article are as follows:  19% = 1 – (8+1594)/(162+1816); 29% = 1 – (8 + 1594 – 409)/(162 + 1816 – 287). I ignored denominators as they are similar between groups.Peter Doshi

Clarification: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

February 5, 2021

In response to feedback received following publication, I would like to clarify certain aspects of my article.

First, regarding the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases and my calculations of 19% and 29% vaccine efficacy, readers have posited that this relied on the assumption that all 3410 cases were false negatives and therefore actually true covid-19 cases. While it is correct to say that one could arrive at these figures by making that assumption, and also that others have made similar calculations in discussing the potential implications of the 3410 suspected covid-19 cases, the 19% and 29% calculations I made in my article did not rely on assuming anything about false negatives. My calculations were of vaccine efficacy against an endpoint of “covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result” (i.e. irrespective of what is causing those covid-19 symptoms, whether that be SARS-CoV-2 or something else). This was not the primary endpoint used in the trials, which was laboratory confirmed covid-19 (symptoms plus positive lab test). The rationale for considering vaccine efficacy against the syndrome people wish to avoid (and not simply against the proportion of that syndrome caused by one particular virus) may be made by way of analogy with influenza: Cochrane reviews influenza vaccines have long reported on vaccine performance against not only influenza, but also influenza-like illness (ILI) which is a syndrome defined by symptoms and not based on laboratory tests.  

Regarding the impact of false negative PCR test results, which is a longstanding concern about the tests, I wrote, “If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy.” What I should add is that, even if it was just some (i.e. not many or most) of the 3410 cases, this too would have the effect of reducing vaccine efficacy against covid-19, but certainly less dramatically than if “many or most” were false negatives. Obviously, the higher the rate of false negatives, the larger the reduction in efficacy against covid-19, and nobody knows the true false negative rate in the trials, nor is it clear to me whether all 3410 suspected covid-19 cases were even tested (I would hazard a guess that the vast majority were tested, but we only know they “were not PCR-confirmed”). Ultimately, the calculations and statements about reduced vaccine efficacy were meant to help illustrate why I think there is a pressing need to better understand the “suspected covid-19” category, and this applies to all covid-19 vaccine trials, not just Pfizer’s trial and not just mRNA vaccines, as I think it is fair to assume that similar cases will occur in all trials.

Second, in reference to the final section of my article, readers have commented that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is not likely to release individual participant datasets from covid-19 vaccine trials. I agree with this comment and did not intend to suggest that the EMA would do this, for the simple reason that the EMA does not itself routinely receive individual participant data from industry, so the agency has none to release.

Third, the views and opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland, my employer.

Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ

Competing interests: I have been pursuing the public release of vaccine trial protocols, and have co-signed open letters calling for independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.Peter Doshi

Posted in COVID | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Free States Faring Far Better Than Lockdown States in One Huge Way, New Data Show

The results are in—and they overwhelmingly vindicate the free states over the authoritarian experiments. 

Monday, March 29, 2021

Graph Created With MapChart.net

Brad Polumbo
Brad Polumbo

EconomicsCOVID-19LockdownsUnemploymentStatesLabor

When COVID-19 first came to our shores, it presented policymakers and elected officials with a crisis like nothing in living memory. In the year since, states have taken markedly different approaches to pandemic policy. Some, like New York, embraced sweeping government lockdowns and top-down mandates while others like Florida and South Dakota took a more humble, hands-off government approach, trusting individuals to make the best decisions for themselves.

The results are in—and they overwhelmingly vindicate the free states over the authoritarian experiments. First, we saw that states with the harshest restrictions didn’t necessarily achieve the best COVID-19 death outcomes. Florida has fared far better than New York and New Jersey, for example, and multiple studies have found no correlation between lockdown stringency and death rates

Yet lockdowns have come at an enormous economic and human cost. We’ve seen mental health problems and child suicide spikes, an increase in domestic violence, an uptick in drug overdoses, and much, much more. And, of course, the economic toll of shutting down businesses and criminalizing “non-essential” livelihoods has been devastating.

The national unemployment rate was a poor if not disastrous 6.2 percent in February. Yet the just-released state-level unemployment rates for last month show that the devastation hasn’t been equal across the board. New Labor Department data reveal that many free states have returned to nearly their pre-pandemic unemployment rates—while lockdown states dominate the wrong end of the list. 

Hands-off states such as South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, and New Hampshire top the list with unemployment rates hovering around a stellar 3 percent. States that received enormous flak for eschewing drastic lockdowns like Georgia and Florida both rank in the top 20. Perhaps the only obvious outlier is Texas, which ranks poorly with an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent—but, then again, Governor Greg Abbott only rolled back the remaining restrictions in the Lone Star state earlier this month.  

Meanwhile, the worst 10 states, with unemployment rates from 7 to 9 percent, include lockdown-happy localities like New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, D.C., and Rhode Island. 

There is a clear trend here. Free states have largely avoided the labor market carnage associated with the COVID pandemic, while lockdown states have wrought higher unemployment levels—without guaranteeing better pandemic health outcomes. 

As famed economist Thomas Sowell said, in complex issues of public policy “there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs.” There was never an easy answer to the COVID pandemic, but the economic, health, and social outcomes of free states all suggest that they made the right call in rejecting the authoritarian instinct embraced by too many of their neighbors.

source: https://fee.org/articles/free-states-faring-far-better-than-lockdown-states-in-one-huge-way-new-data-show/?fbclid=IwAR1rdm6xaKWP6pmUFEJSDaBGODTb7kO13UGokMycUUu7eu9F6VgDwz2Gbxs

Posted in COVID, Government related, lockdown, medical | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine

Christian Elliot April 5, 2021


A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I’ve read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can’t make sense of these covid vaccines.

THREE GROUND RULES FOR DISCUSSION

If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent.

Here are the rules…

I am more than happy to correspond with you if…

  1. You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.
  2. You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.
  3. You make your points using sound logic and don’t hide behind links or the word “science.” In other words, make a kind, level-headed argument (links welcome), but don’t just post a link and say “read the science.” That’s intellectually lazy.

If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.

With that out of the way, let me say this…

I don’t know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.

So here are the reasons I’m opting out of the covid vaccine.

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.

First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.

The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.

No liability. No trust.

Here’s why…

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:

  1. Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).
  2. Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).
  3. Are both (Johnson & Johnson).

Moderna had been trying to “Modernize our RNA” (thus the company name)–for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market–how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death–see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and Opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?

In case it hasn’t sunk in, let me reiterate…3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

Let me reiterate this point:

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.

No. I don’t trust them.

No liability. No trust.

Here’s another reason why I don’t trust them.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960’s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.

In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren’t necessary back then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.

For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960’s.

You can read a summary of this history/science here.

Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

  • In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets
  • In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated
  • In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
  • In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.

The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.

The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a “cytokine storm” (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Here’s the lingering issue…

The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA “vaccines” been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I’m sure they figured that out.

Except they don’t know if they have…

#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “Data Gaps” they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.

They simply don’t know–i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

As Joseph Mercola points out…

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?”

If that’s not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data–i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

  • Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55
  • Pregnant or lactating mothers
  • Auto-immune conditions
  • Immunocompromised individuals
  • No data on transmission of covid
  • No data on preventing mortality from covid
  • No data on duration of protection from covid

Hard to believe right?

In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let’s turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the “90% and 95% effective” claims touted in the news?

Me too…

But they won’t let us see that data.

As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.

There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”

Wait…what?

Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?

Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to find out if they had covid?

Apparently not.

Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?

Can we only guess they didn’t test because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?

Where’s the FDA?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have “covid-like symptoms,” and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

I mean it’s only every citizen of the world we’re trying to get to take these experimental products…

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn’t that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?

Good question.

Foxes guarding the hen house?

Seems like it.

No liability. No trust.

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.

In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now–for ANY population.

Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky “data gaps” before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?

Well…that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point…

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

What most who are taking the vaccine don’t know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial.

They are part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.

Time will tell how this experiment works out.

But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t we be seeing that all over the news?

Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?

Well, if the adverse events reporting system was working, maybe things would be different.

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) – read page 6 at the link above.

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

“VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021.”

And those numbers don’t include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy.

If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn’t see that on the news.

That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don’t hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out, or check this out.

But then there’s my next point, which could be argued makes these covid vaccines seem pointless…

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

Wait, what?

Aren’t these vaccines supposed to be what we’ve been waiting for to “go back to normal”?

Nope.

Why do you think we’re getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.

If you don’t believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.

The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right?

That’s it…lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we’ve been waiting for.

Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

  1. It can’t stop us from spreading the virus.
  2. It can’t stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.
  3. To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don’t involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.

Now for the next logical question:

If we’re worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?

If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.

I can’t make sense of that either.

Take the risk.

Get no protection.

Suffer through the vaccine side-effects.

Keep wearing your mask and social distancing…

And continue to be able to spread the virus.

What?

It gets worse.

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

Talk about a bummer.

You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.

Given the reasons above (and what’s below), maybe this doesn’t surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.

It’s not.

That was never the point.

If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine…maybe they aren’t wowed by the rushed science either.

Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported…

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

According to the CDC’s own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn’t stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me–actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let’s not split hairs here.

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year…i.e. forever.

But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths, that’s alarming right?

I’m glad you asked.

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

Something smells really funny about this one.

Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.

Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with covid in their body, as having died of covid, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?

Until covid, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, or any other major co-morbidity.

The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, both the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of covid, are also included in the death numbers.

Seriously?

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?

According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section “Comorbidities and other conditions”) only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just covid.

Even if the former CDC director is correct and covid-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet ever year.

Then there’s this Fauci guy.

I’d really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn’t treated one covid patient…you should probably know…

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using tax payer funding.

Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine…which he approved government funding for.

In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna’s vaccine.

Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?

I say criminal because there’s also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general.

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

What is “Gain-of-Function” research?

It’s where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions–i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.

Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?

How could that possibly be helpful?

Our government agreed, and banned the practice.

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?

They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China–to the tune of a $600K grant.

You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.

Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do…and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.

For now, let’s turn our attention back to the virus…

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (who you’ll meet below if you don’t know him) it’s mutating about every 10 hours.

How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?

We’re not.

Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch covid?

Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?

That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

I can’t help but get snarky here, so humor me.

How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn’t it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics, and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

  • Lockdowns
  • Mask wearing
  • Social-distancing
  • Vaccine efficacy and safety trials
  • How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury
  • Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)

Wasn’t it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with covid) have their “science” questioned?

Wasn’t it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?

Oh, wait…you didn’t see those debates?

No, you didn’t…because they never happened.

What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.

Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can’t?

Hypocrite?

When did the first amendment become a suggestion?

It’s the FIRST amendment Mark–the one our founders thought was most important.

With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative…shouldn’t many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?

What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?

Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says “the science is settled” that’s how I know I’m dealing with someone who is closed minded.

By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.

If it was, it would be dogma, not science.

OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this…

I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN

I really do.

If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.

If masks work, I want to wear them.

If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.

But, if there is evidence they don’t (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence too.

If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.

I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.

I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.

Maybe I’m weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.

Don’t you?

To all my friends who don’t have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?

Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants, and greedy, power-hungry people?

Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it’s the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the covid vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?

Would you want to hear what he has to say?

Would you want to see the debate he’s asking for?

#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…

Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn’t make sense to me.

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

  1. Why the covid vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating it’s ability to mutate and become more deadly.
  2. Why the covid vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic resistant bacteria).
  3. Why, because of previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.

If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.

If you don’t like his science, take it up with him.

I’m just the messenger.

But I can also speak to covid personally.

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

I didn’t enjoy it.

It was a nasty cold for two days:

  • Unrelenting butt/low-back aches
  • Very low energy.
  • Low-grade fever.

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days.

A week later, coffee still tasted a little “off.”

But I survived.

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity

…not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

In my body, and my household, covid is over.

In fact, now that I’ve had it, there is evidence the covid vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.

That is not a risk I’m willing to take.

IN SUMMARY

The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine.

Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don’t.

Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.

I for one think there’s a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

  • We all want to live in a world of freedom.
  • We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.
  • We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we’ll be censored or viciously attacked.
  • We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.

for the full article see this link: https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine?fbclid=IwAR1sOcSEzPIULDThzhVzuPiorN9c2298Vb-GnJV0cNJjvXVS0qzVnmmL7_0

Posted in COVID, First Amendment, medical | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’

‘Look out the window, and think, “why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?” Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.’Wed Apr 7, 2021 – 8:47 am EST

Featured Image
Dr. Mike YeadonArshad Ebrahim / YouTube

Patrick DelaneyBy Patrick Delaney

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview. 

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

  1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
  2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
  3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign. 
  4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
  5. Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
  6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
  7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.” 

Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in. SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants. 

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives. 

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab. 

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. 

“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.

“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie

“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass-depopulation’

“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that? 

“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you. 

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies. 

“So, you’ve got on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those are true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason. 

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”— Article continues below Petition —PETITION: Say ‘No’ to COVID ‘Vaccine Passports’! 

146,874 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 150,000!Add your signature:  Show Petition Text  Country…USACanadaAaland IslandsAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic Republic of the CongoDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinePanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of KosovoReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthelemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe  State…AlabamaAlaskaAmerican SamoaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFederated States Of MicronesiaFloridaGeorgiaGuamHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarshall IslandsMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthern Mariana IslandsOhioOklahomaOregonPalauPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirgin IslandsVirginiaWashingtonWashington D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces Pacific Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.  Sign this Petition

‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’

“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”

“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’ 

“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Get away, ya know, get out of here … 

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar).

“You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.

“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’ 

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference. 

“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens

“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’

“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it. 

“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!” 

“They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer. 

“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’ 

“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell

“So, that’s why I’m frightened. 

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal. 

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before. 

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”

Towards a solution – ‘We need God’

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail. 

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”

source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death

Posted in COVID, Globalism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

On The Psychology Of The Conspiracy Denier

A closer look at the class that mocks.

Tim FoyleMar 53892

Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?

History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound. We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms – that corruption surrounds us. We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice. We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.

So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy? What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world? The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous. Why?

It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder. So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a ‘game’, in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for ‘winning’ are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly? Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being. All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naivete bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?

The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with – a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise. In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously – in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both. Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith – as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.

Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one’s own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility – to develop and cultivate a mature faith – which many are, understandably, unaware of. What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?

I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its ‘default’ infant setting. While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it. And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.

In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow – above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy – corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview – in short, where there is a barred door – mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever. This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier’s mindset, the decrepit foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer at and mock those who see otherwise.

This explains why it is that the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present – that sociopaths are behind the barred door, who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it – which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does. Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and, because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.

The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, ‘there couldn’t be a conspiracy that big’. The simple retort to such a self-professed expert on conspiracies is obvious: how big? The biggest ‘medical’ corporations in the world can go for decades treating the settling of court cases as mere business expenses, for crimes ranging from the suppressing of adverse test events to multiple murders resulting from undeclared testing to colossal environmental crimes. Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable ‘experiments’ (crimes) on their own people without consequence. Politicians habitually lie to our faces, without consequence. And on and on. At what point, exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that ‘they’ just couldn’t get away with it, and why? I suggest it’s at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one’s lips found the nipple. The faith that someone else is dealing with it – that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally in order to guarantee eternal emotional security. This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity’s physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.

To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and sceptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you believe in? Where have you placed your faith and why? How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organisations without question? How is this rational? If you are placing faith in such organisations, consider that in the modern global age, these organisations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can’t trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them. If you haven’t consciously developed a faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organisations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. True power remains, as ever, with the people.

There is a reason why Buddhists strongly advise the placing of one’s faith in the Dharma, or the natural law of life, rather than in persons, and that similar refrains are common in other belief systems. Power corrupts. And, in the world today, misplaced and unfounded trust could well be one of the greatest sources of power there is.

Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Certainly not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, ‘useful idiots’, and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing. It is every humane being’s urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist – never to attack those who seek to do so. Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, and childish impulses, and to stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who have no choice but to trust us with their lives.

This essay has focussed on what I consider to be the deepest psychological driver of conspiracy denial. There are certainly others, such as the desire to be accepted; the avoidance of knowledge of, and engagement with, the internal and external shadow; the preservation of a positive and righteous self-image: a generalised version of the ‘flying monkey’ phenomenon, in which a self-interested and vicious class protect themselves by coalescing around the bully; the subtle unconscious adoption of the sociopathic worldview (e.g. ‘humanity is the virus’); outrage addiction/ superiority complex/ status games; a stunted or unambitious intellect that finds validation through maintaining the status quo; the dissociative protective mechanism of imagining that crimes and horrors committed repeatedly within our lifetime are somehow not happening now, not ‘here’; and plain old fashioned laziness and cowardice. My suggestion is that, to some degree, all of these build on the foundation of the primary cause I’ve outlined here.

source: https://reportingforbeauty.substack.com/p/on-the-psychology-of-the-conspiracy-7ff?fbclid=IwAR1imTVrj7RuRTyTbU9-HTodG9w3bLgHaNu5bIe8MgbbKfbmGU8uw4AjnvM

Posted in corruption, crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eminent doc: Media censored COVID-19 early treatment options that could have reduced fatalities by 85%

By Patrick Delaney 4/8/2021

An exceedingly well-qualified physician, who was censored by YouTube last year, addressed the Texas State Senate Health and Human Service Committee last month providing thorough information on successful treatments of COVID-19, the present high-level of herd immunity from the disease, the very limited potential of “vaccines,” and the data that shows early treatment could have saved up to 85 percent of the “over 500,000 deaths in the United States.”

(Article by Patrick Delaney republished from LifeSiteNews.com)

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD is an internist and cardiologist, along with being a professor of medicine at Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center. He is distinguished as the most published person in history in his field and an editor of two major medical journals.

McCullough explained that from the beginning of the pandemic, he refused to let his patients “languish at home with no treatment and then be hospitalized when it was too late,” which was the typical treatment protocol being discussed, promoted and offered across the west.

He thus “put together a team of doctors” to study “appropriately prescribed off-label use of conventional medicine” to treat the illness and they published their findings in the American Journal of Medicine.

“The interesting thing was, (that while) there were 50,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID, not a single one told the doctor how to treat it,” he said. “When does that happen? I was absolutely stunned! And when this paper was published … it became … the most cited paper in basically all of medicine at that time the world.”

With the help of his daughter, Dr. McCullough recorded a YouTube video incorporating four slides from the “peer-reviewed paper published in one of the best medical journals in the world” discussing early treatments for COVID-19. The video quickly “went absolutely viral. And within about a week YouTube said ‘you violated the terms of the community’” and they pulled it down.

Due to the “near total block on any information of treatment to patients,” Sen. Bob Johnson hosted a November hearing on this important topic where McCullough was the lead witness.

With such an aggressive suppression of information on early treatments, and the default policy in COVID-19 testing centers to not offer any such resources to those who test positive for the infection, McCullough said, “No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!”

And the blackout of such vital information goes well beyond the blatant censorship of big tech companies. McCullough said, “What has gone on has been beyond belief! How many of you have turned on a local news station, or a national cable news station, and ever gotten an update on treatment at home? How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed the diagnosis of COVID-19? That is a complete and total failure at every level!”

“Let’s take the White House: How come we didn’t have a panel of doctors assigned to put all their efforts to stop these hospitalizations? Why don’t we have doctors who actually treated patients get together in a group and every week give us an update? … Why don’t we have any reports about how many patients were treated, and spared hospitalizations? … This is a complete and total travesty to have a fatal disease, and not treat it,” he said.

“So what can be done right here, right now?” McCullough proposed to the legislators. “How about tomorrow, let’s have a law that says there’s not a single (test) result given out without a treatment guide, and without a hotline of how to get into research. Let’s put a staffer on this and find out all the research available in Texas, and let’s not have a single person go home with a test result with their fatal diagnosis, sitting at home going into two weeks of despair before they succumb to hospitalization and death. It is unimaginable in America that we can have such a complete and total blind spot.”

In reference to early treatments that have been widely used outside the west with great success (with around 1 percent to 10 percent of the death rates of the first world), McCullough turned his attention to broad media suppression of information once again asking, “When was the last time you turned on the news and ever got a window to the outside world? When did you ever get an update about how the rest of the world is handling COVID? Never. What’s happened in this pandemic is the world has closed in on us.

“There’s only one doctor whose face is on TV now. One. Not a panel. (As) doctors, we always work in groups, we always have different opinions. There’s not a single media doctor on TV who’s ever treated a COVID patient. Not a single one. There’s not a single person in the White House Task Force who has ever treated a patient,” he said.

“Why don’t we do something bold. Why don’t we put together a panel of doctors that have actually treated outpatients of COVID-19, and get them together for a meeting. And why don’t we exchange ideas, and why don’t we say how we can finish the pandemic strongly.”

“Isn’t it amazing?! Think about this. Think about the complete and total blind spot (regarding home treatments),” he said.

Herd immunity and vaccination

“The calculations in Texas on herd immunity … right now with no vaccine effect (is) 80 percent,” McCullough said. “And more people are developing COVID today. They’re going to become immune (as well).”

“People who develop COVID have complete and durable immunity. And (that’s) a very important principle: complete and durable. You can’t beat natural immunity. You can’t vaccinate on top of it and make it better. There’s no scientific, clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a COVID-recovered patient. There’s no rationale for ever testing a COVID-recovered patient,” he continued.

“My wife and I are COVID-recovered. Why do we go through the testing outside? There’s absolutely no rationale (for such testing).”

Given the high levels of herd immunity, McCullough said any impact from broad vaccination in preventing COVID-19 can only be minimal at best.

“There’s plenty of COVID-recovered patients. Let them forgo the vaccine and let people who are clamoring for it get it. But at 80 percent herd immunity, in the vaccine trials fewer than one percent … in the placebo actually get COVID. Fewer than one percent. The vaccine is going to have a one percent public health impact. That’s what the data says. It’s not going to save us, we’re already 80 percent herd immune,” he said.

“If we’re strategically targeted we can actually close out the pandemic very well with the vaccine,” the cardiologist stated. “But strategically targeted. (For) people under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, there’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated.”

Addressing the broad “misinformation” of asymptomatic transfer of COVID-19, which has supported the need for lockdowns due to the notion that the virus can be unintentionally spread by infectious, asymptomatic people, the medical professor said, “One of the mistakes I heard today as a rationale for vaccination is asymptomatic spread. And I want to be very clear about this: My opinion is there is a low degree, if any, of asymptomatic spread. Sick person gives it to sick person. The Chinese have published a study … [of] 11 million people. They tried to find [evidence of] asymptomatic spread. You can’t find it. And that’s been, you know, one of important pieces of misinformation.”

Finally, McCullough highlighted the impact of suppressing information on effective and safe early treatments during this last year. Citing two “very large” studies, he said “when doctors treat patients early who are over age 50 with medical problems, with a sequence multi-drug approach … there’s an 85 percent reduction in hospitalizations and death.”

“We have over 500,000 deaths in the United States. The preventable fraction could have been as high as 85 percent (425,000) if our pandemic response would have been laser-focused on the problem: the sick patient right in front of us,” he concluded.

source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eminent-doc-media-censored-covid-19-early-treatment-options-that-could-have-reduced-fatalities-by-85

Posted in COVID, First Amendment, medical | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccination in Israel: Challenging mortality figures?

Analysis by infectious disease specialist claims mismatch between data published by authorities and reality on the ground.

by Mordechai Sones Feb. 18, 2021

A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling “the high mortality caused by the vaccine.”

The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”

Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.

FranceSoir writes that they follow publications, data analyzes, and feedback from various countries on vaccination, and have therefore taken an interest in the Nakim article, asking to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.

The authors of the article declare they have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.

After a presentation, the authors discussed their data analysis, the validations carried out, limitations, and above all, their conclusions that they compare with data received via a Health Ministry Freedom of Information Act request.

Their findings are:

  • There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.
  • They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.
  • In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
  • Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
  • On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: “We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine.”
  • The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
  • Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.

They also invite specialists to complete their analyses, and intend to pursue legal follow-up to their discovery. The Health Ministry was not available for comment on a FranceSoir query regarding the findings.

The authors also deplored “the fact of not being able to communicate on this vital information” to their fellow citizens.

On their site, Nakim writes: “On February 11, 2021, Ynet (the most known Israeli News website) published a confused and confusing article entitled ‘Vaccination efficiency data in Israel, and its rapid effects on the young’.

“Our reanalyses of these data explain why during the massive vaccination project initiated mid-December 2020 during a confinement, daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases failed to decrease as they do during confinements, and, more importantly, why numbers of serious, critical, and death cases increased during that period that covered at least one month. From mid-December to mid-February (two months), 2,337 among all Israeli 5,351 official COVID-deaths occurred. Our analyses indicate orders of magnitude increases in deaths rates during the 5-week long vaccination process, as compared to the unvaccinated and those after completing the vaccination process. Presumably, asymptomatic cases before vaccination, and those infected shortly after the 1st dose, tend to develop graver symptoms than those unvaccinated.

“The Ynet article is organized in an exciting way and uses data provided in an erroneous way by the Ministry of Health. It is unclear whether this was intentional to prove the vaccine’s efficiency or if this was done erroneously because the provided data were misunderstood. Note that in Israel, all vaccines are from Pfizer.

“The data in the table, rather than indicating the vaccine efficacy, indicate the vaccine’s adverse effects,” the authors conclude.

Sources:

http://www.nakim.org/israel-forums/viewtopic.php?t=270812

https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-debriefings/vaccination-en-israel-des-chiffres-de-mortalite-qui-interpellent-video

source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/297051

Posted in COVID, medical | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

PROJECT DEPOPULATION: BILL GATES GATHERS THE WORLD’S TOP BILLIONAIRES

April 29, 2020  Dean W. Arnold

  • Excerpted from Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa.

On May 5, 2009, Bill Gates gathered together a handful of the West’s richest men who met in Manhattan to discuss what they considered the most dangerous, most critical threat to the planet. 

Those attending included Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, George Soros, and David Rockefeller, Jr. What did they deem the world’s biggest threat? They each gave a 15-minute presentation on their primary concern for the planet. “Taking their cue from Gates, they agreed overpopulation was a priority,” according to the report from London’s Sunday Times.

Gates, Rockefeller, and Soros
Gates, Rockefeller, and Soros

Meanwhile, the staffers of the oligarchs were told that “security briefings” were the reason for their meeting. “We only learned about it afterward,” said Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Normally these people are happy to talk about good causes, but this is different—maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal.” [1]

Gates meeting was a great success, as his billionaire friends and all the major foundations decided to contribute to the Gates Foundation’s population control efforts. Warren Buffett, the second richest at the time behind Gates, shifted $31 billion of his assets to his friend Bill. In 2011, Gates told CNN: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.” In a 2010 Ted Talk he said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [population] by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.”

Such quotes alarmed many that Gates’ obsession with vaccines might be accompanied by a sinister agenda for population reduction. This concern materialized in Kenya in 2014 when of 3 million women there unknowingly received vaccinations from the Gates-funded World Health Organization that were secretly laced with a sterilant and contraceptive. The WHO denied it, but in 2017, the former prime minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga backed the doctors: “Today, we can confirm to the country that the Catholic Church was right.” [2]

Purchase books by Dean W. Arnold at Amazon
Purchase books by Dean W. Arnold at Amazon

My article last week highlighted Gates’s association with eugenicist, Nazi sympathizer, and white supremacist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, through Bill Gates, Sr. being “head of Planned Parenthood,” according a 2003 Bill Gates interview with Bill Moyers. My second article this week documents that Gates, along with George Soros, is a key donor for the Lucis Trust, originally named after Lucifer.

What about the others attending that 2009 meeting, such as David Rockefeller? The Rockefeller Foundation funded Margaret Sanger in her early years. A little research on the Kenya HCG vaccine that sterilizes women also brings to the fore the Rockefeller family. I tracked down the Rockefeller Foundation’s 1968 Annual Report. On page 52, it calls for “progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility.” Their 1988 Annual Report cites a large grant given to India for “a large anti-fertility vaccine for women.” Another generous grant is listed on page 56 “for research on a potential contraceptive vaccine based on beta-hCG synthesized bacteria”—just a few years before the 1993 experiments in Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. [3]

Ted Turner
Ted Turner

Let’s look at one more member of the famous 2009 meeting of oligarchs in Manhattan—Ted Turner. The founder of CNN has been concerned about overpopulation for decades. In 1996, he told Audubon magazine, “We’re all 5 billion of us on this little earth swimming around in space, and there’s too many of us,” he said. “If we had a much smaller population . . . we could cut back to 250 million—350 million people.”  

Turner’s longings are memorialized by a monument of huge, druid-like stone tablets that sit atop a rural hill in Elbert County, Georgia, 30 minutes from CNN headquarters. Yoko Ono wrote a musical score with John Cage in three movements to honor these “Georgia Stones,” which proclaim in eight languages the “Ten Guides” for the billions of people now on earth. 

The First Guide says in engraved script: “Maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature.” [4]

There are no instructions for how to get from today’s 7+ billion down to 500 million people, causing us to wonder what kinds of plans were being made by Turner, Gates, Rockefeller and the others at their secret meeting in 2009.

Georgia Guidestones
Georgia Guidestones

UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program, quoted an expert in its Global Biodiversity Assessment Report: “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” 

Some high-profile figures, however, have called for a deliberate attempt by world leaders to kill off large segments of the population. In a 1991 United Nations publication, world famous oceanographer Jacques Cousteau said: “It’s terrible to have to say this: World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. Prince Philip, royal spouse of Queen Elizabeth, declared his ambition to solve the “population explosion” by being reincarnated as a “particularly deadly virus.” Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist philosopher and humanist leader, celebrated worldwide by population control institutions, provided a careful, reasoned quote to help understand how rational people just might consider eliminating half of humanity.

Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing,” wrote Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. “War so far has had no great effect on this increase . . .  perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full . . . the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of other people’s.” [5] 

Bertrand Russell received the Nobel Prize for literature. He was by all accounts a cordial man. And he dressed nicely.

Again, it is difficult for all of us to imagine “nice” people thinking this way, or acting upon it. However, the elite mentality has always been with us, since Plato wrote his Republic 2300 years ago. Every kid studies this book at prep schools like the Gates’s attended. This most famous of Greek philosophers told us that the ruling class are those “whose aim will be to preserve the average of population.” He further stated, “There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.”

Plato adds that population control must be done in secret—what you might call a conspiracy. “Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd… breaking out into rebellion.” 

David Rockefeller
David Rockefeller

In his 2003 memoirs, David Rockefeller does nothing to dispel the notion that Plato’s Republic is the oligarch’s go-to playbook: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [6]

Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger

The Rockefellers have another black mark on their record that is particularly egregious. Dr. Gregory Pincus, who helped Sanger develop the birth control pill, studied and worked with the Rockefeller funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, exposed for sterilizing 600 French African children and closely associating with the Nazi eugenics program. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was in fact the primary driver of eugenics in Hitler’s Third Reich, overseeing a complex of hospitals and research centers, including the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Hitler was highly influenced by the first director, Eugen Fischer, and his two volume Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene. Many ideas from this book reappear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Dr. Karin Magnussen conducted experiments at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute on eye color to prove Nazi racial theories, and her eye specimens were supplied from concentration camps by famous Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele. When funding began to fall, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s eugenicist center looked to the Rockefellers, who provided more support. [7] 

ENDNOTES

[1] “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation” The Times, May 24, 2009, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/billionaire-club-in-bid-to-curb-overpopulation-d2fl22qhl02 (Retrieved April 22, 2019).

[2] “reducing population growth” Bill Gates 2011 interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, (28 second mark), https://youtu.be/U_Gi6cf-jiI see also, https://jasperandsardine.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/pro-vaccine-fanatic-bill-gates-funds-predictive-model-showing-33-million-people-dead-from-spanish-flu-pandemic.

“lower [population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent” 2010 Ted Talk transcript, https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates/transcript?language=en ;
2010 Ted Talk video, “Innovating to Zero!”  https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?language=en (Retrieved April 22, 2019).

“Catholic Church was right” “Kenya—Thousands infertile after gov’t sponsored vaccination—Odinga,” Agence de Presse Africaine, Sept. 11, 2017, http://apanews.net/en/pays/kenya/news/kenya-thousands-infertile-after-govt-sponsored-vaccination-odinga (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

[3] “[Sanger’s first] clinic received extensive funding from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and his family, who continued to make anonymous donations to Sanger’s causes in subsequent decades.” Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger, sourcing Ellen Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007), p. 277, 293, 558. 

 “President’s Five-Year Review & Annual Report,” The Rockefeller Foundation, 1968, p. 52, 22, 56 https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20150530122242/Annual-Report-1968.pdf (Retrieved April 25, 2019). [Note: this link has disappeared since my book was written, but I saved the document and it is uploaded here: http://deanslist.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Annual-Report-1968.pdf ]

1988 Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report: http://deanslist.info/rockefeller-foundation-annual-report-1988/annual-report-1988/

[4] Bruce Stutz, “Ted Turner Turns it On,” Audubon, November-December, 1991. Vol. 93, No. 6), p. 113. See screenshot at https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/tag/audubon-magazine/ (Retrieved April 25, 2019). 

Randall Sullivan, “American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse,” WIRED, April 20, 2009, https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/?currentPage=1 (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

[5] Global Biodiversity Assessment of UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), Section 9, phase One Draft, Section 9.2.3.2, p. 108 (See also Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1995, p. 773), cited in Henry Lamb, “The Rise of Global Governance,” Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Global_Governance_Why_How_When.htm#91 (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

“Interview: Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” The UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991, p. 13 https://joseywales1965.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/0003_jacques_couteau.pdf (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

“Foreword by Prince Philip,” Fleur Cowles, If I Were an Animal (New York: Morrow, 1987), cited in Wikiquote: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science Upon Society (New York: AMS Press, 1968), p. 103-104 https://ia600300.us.archive.org/0/items/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell.pdf (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

[6] Plato, The Republic, Book V, in The Dialogues of Plato , Vol II (New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1871), p. 285.

David Rockefeller, Memoirs (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 406.

[7] “studied and worked with Kaiser” “Dr. Pincus, Developer of the Birth Control Pill, Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 23, 1967 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0409.html (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

“sterilizing 600 French African children” Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, Bioethics: an anthology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), p. 232, cited in Wikipedia: Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Institute_of_Anthropology,_Human_Heredity,_and_Eugenics (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

“Hitler highly influenced by” A. E. Samaan, From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848 (A.E. Samaan/CreateSpace, 2014) p. 539 https://books.google.com/books?id=JkXJZtI9DQoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

“Eye experiments” Hans-Walter Schmuhl, The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, 1927-1945. Wallstein Verlag: Gottingen, 2003), p. 410, cited in “Eugenics – Karin Magnussen,” Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg Memorial Website http://www.estherlederberg.com/Eugenics%20%28CSHL_List%29/Karin%20Magnussen.html (Retrieved April 26, 2019).

“Financial help” Edwin Black, “Eugenics and the Nazis—the California connection,” San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2003 https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php (Retrieved April 26, 2019). 

source: http://dean-w-arnold.com/articles-blogs/bill-gates-gathers-billionaires

Posted in Globalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

America’s richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat

John Harlow, Los AngelesSunday May 24 2009, 1.00am BST, The Sunday Times

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.

“Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

Posted in Globalism, medical | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The non-vaccine ‘vaccine’: Is it really safe?

Jane Orient, M.D., notes deaths of those who got the shot may be higher than if they had COVID

Jane M. Orient, M.D.By Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Published March 18, 2021 at 7:55pm

Like most of us, you are probably longing for a return to normal.

Getting everybody vaccinated is supposed to be the way back, but the official word is “not yet,” even if you have gotten your shot. Continue wearing your mask and keeping your distance.

The Biden administration has announced a $1.5 billion taxpayer-funded advertising campaign – for a product that is free to the user because it was already bought and paid for by the taxpayer. The reason is “vaccine hesitancy” – some people don’t want the shots, including up to half of medical workers. And there is a push to require a “green pass” like in Israel – proof of vaccination, at first to take an international flight, later to work, shop, go to a concert, etc.

There are a few facts that you should know before getting in line:

  • The products are not FDA approved. They have an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). By law, such products cannot be mandatory, and you should have to sign a detailed informed consent before receiving it.

  • The products are not vaccines in the usual sense – the dictionary definition had to be changed to call them that. They are experimental biologic agents, a form of gene therapy.
  • Public health authorities state that none of the 1,637 post-vaccine deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of March 8 are provably caused by a COVID vaccine. But the deaths cluster in the first few days (see graphic below) instead of being evenly distributed, and the rate is many times higher than for other vaccines.
  • It is too soon to evaluate long-term adverse effects, such as autoimmune diseases, cancer, birth defects, impairment of fertility, or antibody-enhanced disease from later virus infection.
  • Deaths in the vaccinated population may be higher than if they had gotten the disease. Analysts in Israel calculate that in the five-week mass immunization period, 40 times more elderly people and 260 times more younger people died than the disease would have killed during that period.
  • In German nursing homes there were many times more deaths in the two months after the vaccination campaign started than in the entire prior year (see graphic).
  • Manufacturers are immune from product liability. Argentina and Brazil haven’t gotten Pfizer product because they have so far declined to pledge sovereign assets such as military bases to indemnify Pfizer in the event of harm.

At this point, there are many questions and many unknowns. For further information see:

Time Distribution of Death Reports to VAERS after COVID-19 Vaccines

Deaths in Nursing Homes Attributed to COVID-19. Blue = deaths in prior year; red = deaths in 2 months since vaccination campaign started.

Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981 and is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College Of Medicine. She received her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She is the author of “Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis”; the fourth edition has just been published by Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. She also authored “YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care,” published by Crown.

source: https://www.wnd.com/2021/03/non-vaccine-vaccine-really-safe/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=dlvrit&utm_content=2021-03-18&fbclid=IwAR0nThWwCS56syRNfo7VQDnSibTvFCilzYJYoVu9jmGLC7B4kd2dd5F6ApA

Posted in COVID, FDA, medical | Tagged , , | Leave a comment